Should Iran be prevented from having nuclear weapons?

by **Ivan** Fri Nov 18, 2011 10:53 pm

First topic message reminder :

I used to think it was breathtaking arrogance and hypocrisy for those countries which have nuclear weapons to make judgements about which other countries could, or couldn’t, have them as well. After all, if you want to take the moral high ground on this issue, shouldn’t you get rid of your own nuclear weapons before telling other countries that they can’t have them?

My opinion changed immediately when I heard the President of the Islamofascist state of Iran (who goes by some name like ‘Ironmydinnerjacket’) say, on the first of several occasions, that he wanted "to wipe Israel off the map”. George W. Bush, with his talk of 'crusades' and his readiness to go to war against Saddam Hussein “because he tried to kill my daddy”, was a dangerous man to have in charge of nuclear weapons, but no Western power has talked of wiping out nations.

The five permanent members of the UN Security Council, and Germany, have expressed their "increasing concern" over Iran's nuclear programme, and they have called for clarification over any possible military uses. Iran insists that the programme is for purely peaceful purposes, but the International Atomic Agency says they want to send a high level mission to Iran to clear up any confusion.

With nuclear weapons, Iran could do very serious damage to Israel, and a pre-emptive strike by the Israelis must be a strong possibility. Should we support that, or even precipitate it? Are attempts at negotiation with Iran a waste of time?

by oftenwrong Tue Nov 22, 2011 10:14 am

Saddam had cardboard-cutout replicas in many similar countries, as we have learned during the Arab Spring.

They won't all be dislodged any time soon, not least because their peoples have no practical experience of living in a democracy.

by witchfinder Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:16 pm

RockOnBrother

You say that Israel is the only nation where Palestinians are guaranteed freedom of religion, forgive me if I am wrong but I was under the impression that most Palestinians were Muslim, therefore I would assume that Palestinians would be free to practice their faith in virtualy the whole of the middle east.

It is one thing to give Palestinians / Muslims the freedom to practice their faith, but then to steal their homes, bulldoze their property, segregate them and build fences around them, deny them of basic services like medicines, electricity, fuel and quite often clean water is realy another matter.

It makes me mad that there are people like you - excusers for what the Israelis do every day to other human beings, to women and children and to innocent people.

I am not blinkered, and I do not see the world through rose tinted glasses, I do not bury my head in the sand, I accept that there are terrorists and evil amongst the Palestinians, but I also know that Israel is not far short of a terrorist state.

by GreatNPowerfulOz Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:33 pm

Should Iran be prevented from having nuclear weapons? - Page 2 MEast-pol

I'm curious, Witchfinder....looking at the map of the Middle East, why would you think Israel is bullying the Muslims?

David vs. Goliath doesn't even begin to be a realistic comparison.

by blueturando Wed Nov 23, 2011 1:41 pm

Very good point Oz....It would the same as the UK saying it was being bullied the Shetland Islands :-)

by **Ivan** Wed Nov 23, 2011 2:10 pm

A tiny country called the UK created the largest empire the world had ever seen. How? Because we had powerful weapons that the conquered countries didn't have.

by Guest Wed Nov 23, 2011 2:28 pm

Posted in error

by oftenwrong Wed Nov 23, 2011 2:28 pm

Barbed-wire put an end to the Cavalry Charge.
What's going to stop nuclear profusion?

by Guest Wed Nov 23, 2011 2:47 pm

Shirina wrote:
I think the exact quote you're looking for is how there are three things God should not have created - "Jews, Persians, and flies."

That’s it exactly, Shirina. I’ve repeated it below for emphasis. According to the Muslim Arab Syrian and Iraqi Nazi sympathizers and collaborators of the Baath Party:

“There are three things God should not have created; Jews, Persians, and flies.”

That mindset, Witchfinder, is the reality faced by Israeli politicians, Mossad, and the Israeli Defence Force every day, twenty-four hours per day, seven days per week, fifty-two weeks per year, for the sixty-three plus years of the existence of the modern State of Israel.

by Shirina Wed Nov 23, 2011 4:25 pm

What's going to stop nuclear profusion?

Anti-ballistic missile defense systems, otherwise known as the Strategic Defense Initiative or "Star Wars." When Reagan proposed it back in the 80's, the technology to do it wasn't available, but it is now, and I personally believe that the US already has most (if not all) of it in place. It was just done secretly because the Russians were throwing a fit over how it would shift the balance of power. There was some debate a year or two ago about spending $600 billion to build a "missile shield" for Poland ... missile shield?

The US missile defense complex in Poland, also called the European Interceptor Site (EIS) was part of the Ballistic Missile Defense European Capability of the US, to be placed in Redzikowo, Słupsk, Poland, forming a Ground-Based Midcourse Defense system in conjunction with a US narrow-beam midcourse tracking and discrimination radar system in the Brdy, Czech Republic. It was to consist of up to 10 silo-based interceptors, a two-stage version of the existing three-stage Ground Based Interceptor (GBI), with Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle (EKV), with a closing speed of about 7 km/s. The plan was cancelled in 2009.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_missile_defense_complex_in_Poland

My first thought upon hearing this news is ... wait a minute, why are we giving Poland a "missile shield" when WE do not have a missile shield? The answer is simple: Because we DO have a missile shield, we simply weren't told about it, and it was kept out of the media to avoid getting the other nuclear powers antsy.

Now, will this stop the dreaded "suitcase nuke" from going off in Times Square or Trafalgar Square? Of course not ... but it does change the face of the Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) scenario that has been in place since the 60's. It's a major game changer - even for non-nuclear powers and terrorist organizations - if America can launch nukes at other nations without fear of annihilation by a rival opponent.

by oftenwrong Wed Nov 23, 2011 5:29 pm

The Public still think about nuclear threat in terms of political boundaries on the map, but the real threat comes from the simple fact that the collapse of the USSR in its Gorbachov era released a certain amount of fissionable material into what can only be called private hands.

The idea that a bunch of religious fundamentalists might be able to simply buy such material chills the blood.

by Guest Wed Nov 23, 2011 6:26 pm

witchfinder wrote:
RockOnBrother

You say that Israel is the only nation where Palestinians are guaranteed freedom of religion, forgive me if I am wrong but I was under the impression that most Palestinians were Muslim, therefore I would assume that Palestinians would be free to practice their faith in virtualy the whole of the middle east.

It is one thing to give Palestinians / Muslims the freedom to practice their faith, but then to steal their homes, bulldoze their property, segregate them and build fences around them, deny them of basic services like medicines, electricity, fuel and quite often clean water is realy another matter.

It makes me mad that there are people like you - excusers for what the Israelis do every day to other human beings, to women and children and to innocent people.

I am not blinkered, and I do not see the world through rose tinted glasses, I do not bury my head in the sand, I accept that there are terrorists and evil amongst the Palestinians, but I also know that Israel is not far short of a terrorist state.

For Witchfinder:

by Guest Wed Nov 23, 2011 6:59 pm

witchfinder wrote:
RockOnBrother

You say that Israel is the only nation where Palestinians are guaranteed freedom of religion, forgive me if I am wrong but I was under the impression that most Palestinians were Muslim, therefore I would assume that Palestinians would be free to practice their faith in virtualy the whole of the middle east.

Iraqi Arab Sunni Muslims are murdered by Iraqi Arab Shia Muslims for practicing their religion. Iraqi Arab Shia Muslims are murdered by Iraqi Arab Sunni Muslims for practicing their religion. Iraqi Arab Christians are murdered by Iraqi Arab Muslims for practicing their religion. Lebanese Arab Christians are murdered by Lebanese Arab Muslims for practicing their religion. Egyptian Arab Christians are murdered by Lebanese Arab Muslims for practicing their religion. I could go on for quite awhile.

Freedom of religion for Arabs in the Middle East exists solely in Israel. Note the number of Israeli Arabs who prefer to live in Israel (second video).

witchfinder wrote:
It is one thing to give Palestinians / Muslims the freedom to practice their faith, but then to steal their homes, bulldoze their property, segregate them and build fences around them, deny them of basic services like medicines, electricity, fuel and quite often clean water is realy another matter.

Please view the second video.

witchfinder wrote:
It makes me mad that there are people like you - excusers for what the Israelis do every day to other human beings, to women and children and to innocent people.

If I make you mad because I support the right of Israel and Israeli Jews to exist, so be it.

witchfinder wrote:
I am not blinkered, and I do not see the world through rose tinted glasses, I do not bury my head in the sand, I accept that there are terrorists and evil amongst the Palestinians, but I also know that Israel is not far short of a terrorist state.

Israel is not even close to a terrorist state; Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East.

by oftenwrong Wed Nov 23, 2011 7:27 pm

Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East

Most Arabs in Israel have all the same legal rights as every other Israeli citizen. However, these rights may be obscured in practice because of the political/religious turmoil.

About 20% of Israel is Arab, and Arab parties receive about 10% of the popular vote, probably caused by the existence of secular parties, arabs not wishing to see the Yisrael Beiteinu win, or Arabs maybe even voting for the communist party or whatever. Needless to say, Hez bollah is not on the ballot paper.

by witchfinder Wed Nov 23, 2011 7:57 pm

RockOnBrother

For a neutral or unbiased perspective of Israel I think I would much rather trust a Jew who is willing to criticise Israel as against the typical stereotypical American conservative who predictably denounces Muslims and Palestinians and defends the Israeli state.

These kind of predictable attitudes and opinions are a typical trademark to American conservatives as much as horns are a trademark of the buffalo.

In fact I would go so far as to say that the American conservative right is riddled with anti Islamic sentiment.

You can argue until you are blue in the face but the fact is that in the mid 1700s there were virtualy no Jews in Palestine, which includes Israel - in the mid 19th century around 4% of the population of the entire region was Jewish - in 1920 80% of the population was Muslim, the other 20% split between Christians and Muslims.

At the time of independence, Jews were still a minority in the region, so much for democracy, hooray for apartheid.

The reality is that under different names, both Jews and Palestinians have both lived in the area between the Medeteranian and the river Jordan for several thousand years - therefore it must be reasonably concluded that both peoples can claim the right to live there.

by Guest Sat Dec 10, 2011 2:41 am

“Please help me get home”: Video of former FBI agent suggests captors may be in Pakistan
By Laura Rozen | The Envoy – 10 hrs ago

Earlier this year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton dropped a diplomatic bombshell, revealing in a cautiously worded statement in March that the United States had received evidence that Bob Levinson, a former FBI agent who went missing in 2007, was alive and being held in "southwest Asia." In her statement, Clinton asked "respectfully" for Iran's assistance in facilitating Levinson's safe return.

Full story: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/envoy/please-help-home-video-missing-ex-fbi-agent-160124865.html

“Should Iran be prevented from having nuclear weapons?”

Yes!

by keenobserver1 Sat Dec 10, 2011 6:35 pm

“Should Iran be prevented from having nuclear weapons?”

Well yes.

Should the rest of the countries who currently have a nuclear capabillity, consider decommissioning?

Should we all maybe start to sort the problems of our own countries, before we go bouncing round the middle east telling everyone else what to do?

by Charlatan Sun Dec 11, 2011 9:21 pm

Nobody should have nuclear weapons. This will not stop the whole world from coming to possess them under present conditions. The sanctions will remain, and then there will be a few countries that 'should' have them and a few that 'shouldn't.'

How do we avoid catastrophe?

Well, we could try to use terrorism! We could easily threaten all the people that work at the facilities where the nukes are being held and get them to launch them into outer space, or declare a jihad on nukes. This would see the militants roll up to the place and launch them into outer space, then plead for diplomatic crime leniancy, then be out as heroes easily getting new jobs somewhere or other. Brute force could free us, but that is only one remedy...

How about we use submarines to neutralise the nukes? The other side could easily hide under the water and bombard the areas with nukes. This will detonate them in their far off locations from cities and then we would be rid of them.

Nukes are bad is all i know. Why should anybody have them?

by Shirina Sun Dec 11, 2011 11:21 pm

Nukes are bad is all i know. Why should anybody have them?

I have very mixed feelings about them. Of course we all know the potential nukes have for destruction, but I think we often forget their deterrent effect. If not for the presence of nukes, it is guaranteed that the US and Britain would have fought the Soviets in 1945 as they were planning on pushing right out of Germany and into Denmark, Holland, and Belgium - and most likely a weakened France soon after. There's a good chance Stalin would have marched right into Spain to oust fascist Franco right after that. At the same time, Stalin's armies were mauling the Japanese in Asia and continued fighting them for two weeks after the formal surrender in order to gobble up as much territory as possible. I'm certain beyond doubt that the Allies could stand up to the Soviets in the sky and definitely on the high seas, but on the ground, the Soviets had assembled the largest land army the world had ever seen. Only the threat of nukes kept Stalin at bay.

Since WWII, there have been no wars between major powers, and I think that largely has to do with nukes. The big powers have been fighting each other since time immemorial, and even the carnage of WWI did not deter WWII from taking place. The only game changer is the advent of nukes otherwise we'd still be waging horrifically destructive wars. Granted nukes do not stop larger powers from attacking smaller ones, but I fear allowing everyone to have them would result in some nations using nukes offensively instead of as a deterrent.

by Guest Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:54 am

“Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.”

The greatest mass homicides in history, the Holocaust (eleven million), Pol Pot’s decimation of his own people, Josef Stalin’s uncounted millions, and many more, were carried out without nuclear weapons.

A long time ago, a young boy asked his father a question. It went something like this: “Daddy, what’s the difference between police and criminals if they both have guns?” The answer lies within the term “peace officer.”

Anyone who fails to realize that weapons of mass destruction are but tools fails to realize the importance of keeping these tools out of their hands of certain people and certain nations. In 1990, Saddam the beast sent his minions into Kuwait. During the ensuing Operation Desert Storm, Saddam ordered numerous SCUD missiles launched into Saudi Arabia and Israel. Thanks to the destruction of Saddam’s French-built nuclear reactor by eight IDF aviators in 1981, the SCUDs were non-nuclear tipped.

by oftenwrong Fri Dec 16, 2011 2:10 pm

oftenwrong wrote:The Public still think about nuclear threat in terms of political boundaries on the map, but the real threat comes from the simple fact that the collapse of the USSR in its Gorbachov era released a certain amount of fissionable material into what can only be called private hands.

The idea that a bunch of religious fundamentalists might be able to simply buy such material chills the blood.

Not wrong on this occasion.....
Russian Customs officials confiscated packets of fissionable material upon the person of a passenger heading for Iran, today.

by Stox 16 Wed Dec 28, 2011 3:31 am

astra wrote:As we got NO thanks from Sharon, and only condemnation, I think UK should keep well out of this. For once we should be two steps behind Belgium on this one!

yep and just behind Malta Very Happy

by oftenwrong Wed Dec 28, 2011 10:13 am

The USA and Britain, either jointly or separately, have contrived to meddle in the affairs of almost every other Country in the world at some time or another since the Nineteenth Century. With the unique exception of 1945, has any enduring good ever come from any of it?

by Guest Thu Dec 29, 2011 5:58 am

Ron Paul: Let Iran Have the Bomb
Thursday, 11 Aug 2011 10:42 PM
By Martin Gould and Abigail Walls

Iran should be allowed to have a nuclear bomb, Republican candidate Ron Paul suggested during Thursday’s presidential debate.

Rick Santorum said “Iran is not Iceland, Ron. It’s been at war with us since 1979. Anyone who suggests Iran is not a threat to this country is not seeing the world very clearly.”

Full story: http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/ron-paul-iran-bomb/2011/08/11/id/407043
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Ron Paul’s ignorant statement has resurfaced yet again just this month. Note to Mr. Santorum: Evidently, Mr. Paul does indeed view Iran as near-identical to Iceland.
__________________________________________________________________________________________

15 December 2011

Ron Paul “The greatest threat to America, Paul warned was not a nuclear Iran but rather an American overreaction to the perceived threat of Iranian nukes.”

Full article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/12/15/ron-paul-and-michele-bachmann-square-off-over-a-nuclear-iran/
__________________________________________________________________________________________

24 December 2011

[Ron] Paul said even if Iran does get a nuclear weapon that conservatives in favor of preventing the country from developing one and support intervention to stop the development are just worried that Iran will get a nuclear weapon and won’t use it and “all their fear mongering didn’t work.”

Full article: http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2011/12/24/ron-paul-hawks-real-fear-is-that-iran-wont-use-a-nuclear-bomb-proving-their-fearmongering-wrong/

by Shirina Thu Dec 29, 2011 6:39 am

With the unique exception of 1945, has any enduring good ever come from any of it?

That's highly subjective and thus impossible to really answer. It all depends on what one considers "enduring good" and for whom was it enduringly good for.

by Shirina Thu Dec 29, 2011 6:42 am

[Ron] Paul said even if Iran does get a nuclear weapon that conservatives in favor of preventing the country from developing one and support intervention to stop the development are just worried that Iran will get a nuclear weapon and won’t use it and “all their fear mongering didn’t work.”

LOL! Like him or hate him, I find that comment hysterical ... namely because he's probably, at least in part, correct.

by Guest Thu Dec 29, 2011 7:00 am

And yet Barack Hussein Obama Jr., who I believe is prepared to do whatever must be done to protect my country from enemies foreign and domestic, can hardly be labeled “conservative”, except in the descriptive sense in that he’s committed to conserving/preserving/ensuring the survival of the United States and its real allies, including the united Kingdom.

Some folks support the right choice for the wrong reasons. If Hellfire-toting Predators prowl the skies of Iran, it’s because al qaida and taliban beasts prowl the soil of Iran.

by oftenwrong Thu Dec 29, 2011 10:19 am

"....al qaida and Taliban beasts prowl the soil of Iran."

Would the prowling beasts recognise themselves from those descriptions? They probably call themselves something quite different, that translates into Sons of the victims of the infidel avengers of September 11th. or some equally snappy title.

by Guest Thu Dec 29, 2011 10:39 am

oftenwrong wrote:
".... al qaida and taliban beasts prowl the soil of Iran."

Would the prowling beasts recognise themselves from those descriptions?

I don’t know and I don’t care. If you wish an answer to your question, ask the beasts, if you can identify and locate the despicable, woman-terrorizing, woman-torturing, woman-maiming, murdering abominations prior to their being obliterated by a Hellfire missile delivered by a prowling Predator.

oftenwrong wrote:
".... al qaida and taliban beasts prowl the soil of Iran."

They probably call themselves something quite different, that translates into Sons of the victims of the infidel avengers of September 11th. or some equally snappy title.

I don’t know and I don’t care. I call the beasts what they are, despicable, woman-terrorizing, woman-torturing, woman-maiming, murdering abominations.

Good al qaida are dead al qaida. Good Taliban are dead Taliban.

by oftenwrong Thu Dec 29, 2011 12:32 pm

They speak very well of you.

by Guest Thu Dec 29, 2011 6:33 pm

oftenwrong wrote:
They speak very well of you.

You know this, of course, through ear-witness proof and/or omniscience. Either way, I speak of al qaida and taliban beasts as what they are, despicable, woman-terrorizing, woman-torturing, woman-maiming, murdering abominations.

by Shirina Thu Dec 29, 2011 9:36 pm

Either way, I speak of al qaida and taliban beasts as what they are, despicable, woman-terrorizing, woman-torturing, woman-maiming, murdering abominations.

Amen to that.

by witchfinder Thu Dec 29, 2011 10:10 pm

As long as Israel breaks every rule in the book whilst the west does nothing, then I real do not care about Iran attempting to attain nuclear weapons, why should I. ?

When Israel secretly possesses nuclear weapons with the EU and USA knowing full well that they do, yet say nothing, do nothing, then why should anyone care whether Iran does exactly the same.

When Palestinian children die every day through lack of medicines caused by Israels blockade, then perhaps I might cheer out loud when a nation is prepared to confront Israel, because the United States wont confront them, and neither will Britain or Europe.

When Palestinian homes are ilegaly demolished - bulldozed to make way for Israeli homes, then who am I to care if Iran is willing to stand up for the Palestinians - GOOD LUCK to the Iranians.

by oftenwrong Thu Dec 29, 2011 10:23 pm

Shirina wrote:
Either way, I speak of al qaida and taliban beasts as what they are, despicable, woman-terrorizing, woman-torturing, woman-maiming, murdering abominations.

Amen to that.

I would previously have supposed that you need to know someone really, really well on a personal level to be able to make such sweeping statements with any authority.

by Guest Thu Dec 29, 2011 11:12 pm

witchfinder wrote:
As long as Israel breaks every rule in the book…

As “Israel” does not “[break] every rule in the book”, this comment is nonsensical.

witchfinder wrote:
… I real do not care about Iran attempting to attain nuclear weapons, why should I. ?

You should care about the security of the United Kingdom and its allies. Evidently unlike you, I care about the security of my country, the United States, and the security of its allies, including the United Kingdom.

witchfinder wrote:
When Israel secretly possesses nuclear weapons…

… Israel does not threaten to blow Iran (or Iraq, or Syria) off of the face of the globe; in other words, Israel does not threaten Iran (or Iraq, or Syria) with nuclear annihilation.

witchfinder wrote:
When Israel secretly possesses nuclear weapons with the EU and USA knowing full well that they do…

Then Israel does not “secretly [possess] nuclear weapons”; Israel possesses nuclear weapons “with the EU and USA knowing full well that they do.”

As a citizen of the United States of America and a co=owner of the government/republic for which its flag stands, I approve of this state of affairs and I expect abd charge my elected United States Government officials, particularly those for whom I voted for or against, including my two United States Senators from Texas and the President of the United States, the Honorable Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., to ensure the internal and external security of the State of Israel by any means necessary, including supporting Israel’s nuclear capability in every way we know how.

witchfinder wrote:
… why should anyone care whether Iran does exactly the same.

Because “anyone” is a decent human being intent upon keeping weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of beasts and their supporters by any men necessary.

I am “anyone.”

witchfinder wrote:
When Palestinian children die every day through lack of medicines caused by Israel’s blockade…

As “Palestinian children” do not “die every day through lack of medicines caused by Israel’s blockade”, your comment is nonsensical.

witchfinder wrote:
… then perhaps I might cheer out loud when a nation is prepared to confront Israel…

I hope and pray that such sound and fury, signifying nothing, falls upon deaf and/or nonexistent ears.

witchfinder wrote:
..because the United States wont confront them, and neither will Britain or Europe.

The United States is home to far too many decent human beings for our country to perform such a despicable act. As the United Kingdom has also refrained from such despicability, I presume that the United Kingdom remain a beacon of decency in this world.

witchfinder wrote:
GOOD LUCK to the Iranians.

I pray for you.

by Shirina Fri Dec 30, 2011 8:16 pm

I would previously have supposed that you need to know someone really, really well on a personal level to be able to make such sweeping statements with any authority.

I don't have to conduct and interview with each Taliban member. There is such a thing as "guilt by association."

by Shirina Fri Dec 30, 2011 8:33 pm

As long as Israel breaks every rule in the book whilst the west does nothing, then I real do not care about Iran attempting to attain nuclear weapons, why should I. ?

You should care even if you don't like Israel. Nothing says that Iran will use them on Israel. They may use them somewhere else - or sneak a suitcase nuke into London or Washington. Nothing says that Iran will play fair with nukes by launching an easily detectable and traceable missile at their targets. If I wanted to use nukes, I would use the suitcase method. It saves me the hassle of trying to develop my own multi-stage ballistic missile which the Iranians probably can't do in the first place.

I would also care about all of the innocents affected by the radioactive fallout - most of which will end up in Jordan, northern Saudi Arabia, and western Iraq.

When Israel secretly possesses nuclear weapons with the EU and USA knowing full well that they do, yet say nothing, do nothing, then why should anyone care whether Iran does exactly the same.

Because Israel is not ...
a) governed by hardliners heavily influenced by religious zealotry and fanaticism
b) anti-West
c) anti-democratic
d) prone to revolutions and sudden regime changes

This would be like saying, "Well, why should we care if Germany develops atomic bombs in 1945 when America is secretly developing atomic bombs and not telling anyone about them."

When Palestinian children die every day through lack of medicines caused by Israels blockade

Nations use blockades and economic sanctions all the time. Children die because of those blockades, too. Blockades hurt the population more than they hurt the leaders they are designed to influence. Often they are ineffective ... but they are still used since it is often the only choice short of military action. Thus I don't see why Israel should be confronted about using a blockade.

then who am I to care if Iran is willing to stand up for the Palestinians

Because they're not standing up for the Palestinians, and any use of nuclear weapons on Israel would only destroy or render uninhabitable the bulk of the territory the Palestinians want. Iran, specifically Mr. Dinner Jacket, hates Israel because Jews live there. The Palestinian cause is just a fortuitous happenstance to the Iranian regime.

by Charlatan Sat Dec 31, 2011 3:11 am

Iran is not a terrorist state. They treat their people very well, and much freedom is allowed to them. The people respond by adhering to the laws of the land, and there is virtually no crime. If they were to attain a nuclear weapon, they would never use it because they have nobody to hurt.

THis fathomed genocide with the isrealis comes from palestine. These are not militia, but rather just crazies with rockets, if they were to want to invade isreal, they would have no problem doing it, except for the resistance from there. The whole of palestine is not full of people that would press the big red button, they just want to see isreal gone, yet want nothing to do with the doing away of it.

India has nukes. They are full of arabs. If it came down to it, wouldn't iran invade india for their nukes or try to buy them? Why hasn't the whole region declared war on isreal? The fact of the matter is that isreal is full of moslems, so why would they bomb their own people? If they got a nuke, they would still face sanctions, but then why are they so desperate for a nuke as to go through this whole sanction thing? Something is amiss...

Why didn't iraq use the chemical weapons on america? They could have sent it to people to throw around in europe where all the support was coming from... They never used them! If they wanted nukes, would they have used them either? I propose that they will never use the nukes, if the terrible regime of sadam husein and the iran cabinets are anything to go by, there is a definite similarity in geo politics or whatever the 'experts' say is going through these 'alien' minds. Maybe the wierdo iranians will bomb the place the nukes will be launched at them from?

Has anyone ever used a nuke? These dinosaurs are polluting the world and adding to the pressures of presidents the world over. If they were to just leave them there, and let everyone get hold of them, i cannot see there ever being a nuclear war, as the people behind the button have some common sense.

To the south of america i say it is like owning a gun. To the north of america i say it is like owning a dog. To europe i say it is like having a baby. In all of these places ad instances iy is ok for you to own, but not for your neighbour. Getting through to these places is crucial, as opinions elsewhere do not really matter.

by Shirina Sat Dec 31, 2011 7:43 am

India has nukes. They are full of arabs. If it came down to it, wouldn't iran invade india for their nukes or try to buy them?

India would wipe the floor with Iran if the Iranians ever tried to invade. Remember that Iran couldn't defeat Iraq in 8 years where as the Desert Storm coalition defeated Iraq in just 6 weeks (and most of that was simply air and cruise missile attacks - the ground war lasted 100 hours LOL!) Iran is not all that strong militarily. India, however, is probably the strongest regional power in Asia, second only to China. I'm sure France would just love to sell Iran some nukes, though.

Why hasn't the whole region declared war on isreal?

Because Israel would, well, wipe the floor with them. They also know that the USA and NATO would not sit back and allow Israel to fall. Again, looking at Iraq, these other nations in the region know they could never even dream of standing up to the Western powers toe-to-toe. Iraq had the 4th largest army in the world when Desert Storm began. How far do you think Jordan or Syria would get? And Egypt is too dependent on Western tourism and economic aid money to go after Israel. Turkey is a staunch American ally as is Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the U.A.E. There's really no one left except maybe Lebanon and Yemen, and they wouldn't be much help.

The fact of the matter is that isreal is full of moslems, so why would they bomb their own people?

They bomb their own people all the time. Just google up "terrorist bomb" and you'll see dozens upon dozens of articles - but not against Westerners. The Muslims are blowing each other to kingdom come, and have been for a long time. You just don't hear about it unless you go looking for it. The only time it makes the news is if the casualties are unusually high or if a Westerner is killed.

but then why are they so desperate for a nuke as to go through this whole sanction thing? Something is amiss...

They want nukes because they believe it will allow them to deal with the West as "equals." Essentially, it's a bit of penis envy (if you'll pardon the term) on a massive scale. Iran is hoping to up their status on the world stage by joining the Nuclear Club.

Why didn't iraq use the chemical weapons on america?

Because:
a) I don't believe Saddam had any
b) It would destroy Saddam's image as the victim, which is what he was going for
c) Saddam didn't want to risk the US using tactical nukes against his troop and armor concentrations (and we would have)
e) If Saddam had chemical weapons, he would have used them against Israel to bring them into the war in the hopes of destroying the Arab-Western coalition (this is 1991, in 2003, Saddam didn't have any WMDs)

I propose that they will never use the nukes, if the terrible regime of sadam husein and the iran cabinets are anything to go by, there is a definite similarity in geo politics or whatever the 'experts' say is going through these 'alien' minds.

I think you're probably right. Iran, I'm certain, watched the events of the Cold War very carefully being as close as they were to the Soviets, and the Middle East was the most likely flashpoint for a NATO vs. Warsaw Pact confrontation (Berlin died down after the 60's when the Soviets gave up any attempts at taking the rest of the city). I think the Iranians understand just what using a nuclear weapon means. No, I believe Iran wants nukes to, as I've said, up their status and prestige as a nuclear power.

by Guest Sat Dec 31, 2011 8:30 am

One measure of Iranian leaders’ immorality is the post revolution behavior of Iranian Baha’is. The Baha’i Faith is, among world religions that acknowledge God as described in Genesis 1:1, Deuteronomy 6:4, et al, the only faith that (1) did not originate in the Middle East, and (2) did originate in Persia, now part of Iran.

Since the revolution thirty plus years ago, Iranian Baha’is, to escape religious persecution, have fled Iran in significant numbers. Many Baha’is have sought and found refuge in… Israel, where the laws of Israel guarantee to Iranian Baha’is… (watch out, now) free exercise of religion.

by witchfinder Sun Jan 01, 2012 4:28 pm

Imagine been a Paestinian, seriously injured, attempting to get to a hospital, but unfortunately the nearest hospital is in an Israeli sector with guards manning a crossing point.

Its the kind of thing which is an every day occurance in the occupied territories, if you find it difficult to imagine then click on the link and watch the video.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4tBG8PJH_Q[/youtube]

by witchfinder Sun Jan 01, 2012 5:54 pm

There was an old lady who swallowed a fly, I dont know why she swallowed a fly, perhaps she l die; I know an old lady who swallowed a spider, which wriggled and wriggled and tickled inside her, she swallowed the spider to catch the fly.

And so the rhyme goes on - fly, spider, bird, cat, dog, goat, cow - a never ending story of how one thing leads to another.

And so the question is, why is Iran hostile to Israel, is it the same reason why the general public of Egypt are also hostile to Israel ?, also the people of Jordan, Iraq, Syria and Saudi Arabia ?, what exactly is the root cause of all the problems of the middle east, and what does it require to solve the problem. ?

There is no complicated answer, the answer is realy very simple, the peoples and the nations of the middle east need to accept a two state solution.

Israel must stop its terrorism against Palestinians, stop demolishing peoples homes, stop stealing land, put a halt to denying rights and freedoms to Palestinians, stop the apartheid system whereby Palestinians are second class citizens, denied even basic medical treatment and basic essentials to live.

The United States must end its support of the Israeli state, stop pretending to be impartial whilst at the same time been Israels biggest supplier of arms and money.

Its no wonder that Islamic extremists sprung up and its no wonder that these terrorist groups see America as the second most hated target, I have the strongly held opinion that America asked for what it got, the United States has the capability and the power to force Israel into compromise, into reaching a deal, but they refuse to do so.

Get to the source of the middle east problem and solve it

by Sponsored content